Hubbard eyes challenge to law he voted for

A jury will determine whether House Speaker Mike Hubbard is guilty of violating Alabama’s ethics laws, but in challenging the constitutionality of the laws, Hubbard has already lost in one court – the court of public trust. The trial will take place in Lee County, but you can smell the hypocrisy from here.

Hubbard voted for one of the laws he now seems likely to challenge. Alabamians remember very well how tirelessly he touted the stricter ethics laws passed after his party took control of the Legislature after the 2010 elections. Now that the laws have been applied to him and led to his indictment, his enthusiasm has waned. Doesn’t that seem a bit inconsistent?

As the Advertiser’s Brian Lyman reported, Hubbard’s lawyers asked for additional time to file motions in his case, saying that the speaker “anticipates” a challenge to “various portions of the Alabama Ethics Act…” Hubbard was indicted last October on 23 counts of using his public office for private financial gain.

The prohibition of such misconduct lies at the very heart of Alabama’s ethics laws. It’s been the key element of the law since the Ethics Act was first passed 40 years ago. The act remains the best protection Alabamians have against impropriety in public office.

Prosecutors allege Hubbard, R-Auburn, solicited jobs or investments from friends and associates, including former Gov. Bob Riley. He is also accused of using his office to secure consulting contracts for his business, representing some of those entities before the governor and the Department of Commerce, and voting for a General Fund budget that benefited a client.

Hubbard claims it’s a political prosecution orchestrated by Attorney General Luther Strange, who recused himself from the case.

A lot of legal wrangling and finger-pointing has already taken place and more no doubt looms, but none of it addresses some fundamental questions that the people of Alabama are well justified in asking: Why would the speaker of the House vote for a law he believes to be unconstitutional? Did Hubbard arrogantly assume the law would never be applied to him? Did he believe that he could take actions that at the very least are skating disturbingly close to the legal lines without any consequences?

Hypocrisy, of course, is not a crime in itself. Neither is hubris. But there are no more unbecoming traits in a public official than these.

Hubbard may prevail in the criminal trial; that will be the jury’s decision. However, he will not prevail in the court of public trust, which has seen all too clearly the evidence of that hypocrisy and hubris.